This order dismisses an appeal filed challenging an interim order that restored a defaulted testamentary case dismissed in default. The High Court held the impugned order was not a judgment requiring a second appeal, noted the requirement to pay costs in the interim order, and ruled that a fresh probate petition could be filed.
The appeal is dismissed. No cost.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~2
25,000/- is directed to be paid to each of the respondents. Appellant would therefore be receiving 25,000/-.FAO(OS) 265/2015
page 1 of 2
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
FEBRUARY 16, 2016 ‘ga’
page 2 of 2
FAO(OS) 265/2015
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order dismissing an appeal in a testamentary case is a judgment under Section 100 of the CPC requiring a second appeal.
Whether a petitioner can file a fresh petition seeking probate if a testamentary case was previously dismissed in default.
Whether the appeal was allowed or dismissed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shah Babulal Khimji Vs. Jayaben D. KaniaReferred¶10
(1981) 4 SCC 8 Shah Babulal Khimji Vs. Jayaben D. Kania · Who else cites this
Smt Kamal Sethi
SH S K Sethi
Pradeep Nandrajog
Mukta Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
An appeal to a Division Bench against an order made by a single judge on the original side of the High Court.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court